Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 314, Issue 1–2, pp 263–271 | Cite as

Assessing interactive responses in litter decomposition in mixed species litter

  • Dafeng Hui
  • Robert B. Jackson
Regular Article

Abstract

The aim of this research is to propose an improved method to partition single species contributions to decomposition in mixed species litters and to detect additive or non-additive responses in litter decomposition. Using simulated data, we demonstrate that additive responses can arise from multiple conditions, including no changes in litter decomposition rates of both species in the mixtures, or an enhanced decomposition of one species and a reduced decomposition of another. Antagonistic responses can be caused by reduced decomposition of only one species, or of both species. Without partitioning of the contributions of single species proposed here, it is difficult to distinguish the different causes of the overall responses. Our analyses provide a better understanding of litter decomposition in mixtures and have significant implications for modeling litter decomposition.

Keywords

Litter decomposition Mixed species Non-additive effects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs. Rebecca McCulley and Kirsten Hofmockel and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that made this manuscript much improved. This work was supported by grants from NICCR-DOE and NIGEC-DOE (through the office of Biological and Environmental Research at the Department of Energy), the National Science Foundation, the Inter American Institute for Global Change Research, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

References

  1. Berges JA, Montagnes DJS, Hurd CL et al (1994) Fitting ecological and physiological data to rectangular hyperbolae: a comparison of methods using Monte Carlo simulations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 114:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böttcher J (2004) Uncertainties of nonlinearly estimated parameters from incubations of soil organic matter. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 167:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman SK, Koch GW (2007) What type of diversity yields synergy during mixed litter decomposition in a natural forest ecosystem? Plant Soil 299:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dearden FM, Dehlin H, Wardle DA, Nilsson M-C (2006) Changes in the ratio of twig to foliage in litterfall with species composition, and consequences for decomposition across a long term chronosequence. Oikos 115:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang H, Mo J, Peng S, Li Z, Wang H (2007) Cumulative effects of nitrogen additions on litter decomposition in three tropical forests in southern China. Plant Soil 297:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ganjegunte G, Condron LM, Clinton PW et al (2005) Effects of mixing radiata pine needles and understory litters on decomposition and nutrients release. Biol Fertil Soils 41:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glantz SA, Slinker BK (2001) Primer of applied regression and analysis of variance, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hättenschwiler S, Gasser P (2005) Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:1519–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hui D, Jiang C (1996) Practical statistical analysis system (SAS) usage. Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Press, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  11. Hui D, Jackson RB (2007) Uncertainty in scaling exponent estimation: a case study in basal metabolic rate and body mass. J Theor Biol 249:168–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hui D, Luo Y (2004) Evaluation of soil CO2 production and transport in Duke Forest using a process-based modeling approach. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 18:GB4029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoorens B, Aerts R, Stroetenga M (2003) Does initial litter chemistry explain litter effects on decomposition? Oecologia 137:578–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson ML (1992) Why, when and how biochemists should use least squares. Anal Biochem 206:215–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King RF, Dromph KM, Bardgett RD (2002) Changes in species evenness of litter have no effect on decomposition processes. Soil Biol Biochem 34:1959–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kominoski JS, Pringle CM, Ball BA, Bradford MA, Coleman DC, Hall DB, Hunter MD (2007) Nonadditive effects of leaf litter species diversity on breakdown dynamics in a detritus-based stream. Ecology 88:1167–1176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kurz-Besson C, Coûteaux MM, Berg B, Remacle J, Ribeiro C, Romanyà J, Thiéry JM (2006) A climate response function explaining most of the variation of the forest floor needle mass and the needle decomposition in pine forests across Europe. Plant Soil 285:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lecerf A, Risnoveanu G, Popescu C, Gessner MO, Chauvet E (2007) Decomposition of diverse litter mixtures in streams. Ecology 88:219–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LeRoy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 51:605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. LeRoy CJ, Whitham TG, Wooley SC, Marks JC (2007) Within-species variation in foliar chemistry influences leaf-litter decomposition in a Utah river. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liski J, Nissinen A, Erhard M, Taskinen O (2003) Climate effects on litter decomposition from arctic tundra to tropical rainforest. Glob Chang Biol 9:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McArthur JV, Aho JM, Rader RB, Mills GL (1994) Interspecific leaf interactions during decomposition in aquatic and floodplain ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 13:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore TN, Fairweather PG (2006) Decay of multiple species of seagrass detritus is dominated by species identity, with an important influence of mixing litters. Oikos 114:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mudrick DA, Hoosein M, Hick RR et al (1994) Decomposition of leaf litter in an Appalachian forest: effects of leaf species, aspect, slope position and time. For Ecol Manag 68:231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nerlove M (2005) On the numerical accuracy of Mathematica 5.0 for doing linear and nonlinear regression. Math J 9:824–851Google Scholar
  26. Norby RJ, Jackson RB (2000) Root dynamics and global change: seeking an ecosystem perspective. New Phytol 147:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olson JS (1963) Energy stores and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ostrofsky ML (2007) A comment on the use of exponential decay models to test non-additive processing hypotheses in multi-species mixtures of litter. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prescott CE (2005) Do rates of litter decomposition tell us anything we really need to know? For Ecol Manag 220:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quested HM, Callaghan TV, Cornelissen JHC et al (2005) The impact of hemiparasitic plant litter on decomposition: direct, seasonal and litter mixing effects. J Ecol 93:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SAS Institute Inc. (2008) SAS/STAT Ò 9.2 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  32. Schädler M, Brandl R (2005) Do invertebrate decomposers affect the disappearance rate of litter mixtures? Soil Biol Biochem 37:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlesinger WH (1997) Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change, 2nd edn. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Schweitzer JA, Bailey JK, Hart SC et al (2005) Nonadditive effects of mixing cottonwood genotypes on litter decomposition and nutrient dynamics. Ecology 86:2834–2840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swan CM, Palmer MA (2004) Leaf diversity alters litter breakdown in a Piedmont stream. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Studies in ecology, vol. 5. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor BR, Mallaley C, Cairns JF (2007) Limited evidence that mixing leaf litter accelerates decomposition or increases diversity of decomposers in streams of eastern Canada. Hydrobiologia 592:405–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF (2005) Influence of habit, litter type, and soil invertebrates on leaf-litter decomposition in a fragmented Amazonian landscape. Oecologia 144:456–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wardle DA, Nilsson MC, Zackrisson O et al (2003) Determinants of litter mixing effects in a Swedish boreal forest. Soil Biol Biochem 35:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth SciencesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesTennessee State UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations